Al,
I have been asked to
make a decision on all the issues you have regarding
the local group. Everything. Please forward to me all your information,
(everything) including the signed agreement you've mentioned.
Thank you,
Eldon Romney,
Ombudsman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Heigl" <webmaster@minnesotamensa.org>
To: "EldonCR" <eldoncr@rrenviro.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Could use some help with a by-law violation
> EldonCR wrote:
>>
>> Dear Al:
>>
>> I'm pretty confident this response will irritate you, and that you will
>> think I'm abrupt and harsh.
>
> No, actually I think Elvis Costello put it well: "Well, I used to be
> disgusted, now I'm just amused ..."
>
>
>> I'm sorry, but I can't see any reason not to be
>> completely candid with you. I think you're already on very thin ice and
>> urge
>> you to carefully consider my comments and suggestions.
>
> There is no thin ice at my end, because my side of the original dispute
> is based on the following:
>
> 1. It is wrong to "kill the messenger" or punish a whistleblower, or to
> use one's position to put shabby treatment on someone who is not part of
> one's "in-crowd" (the last is also a by-law violation).
>
> 2. An organization that is a party to a signed written agreement is
> obligated to comply with that agreement.
>
> 3. It is wrong, stupid, and inimical to the organization to replace a
> highly qualified volunteer with a demonstrably inept one.
>
> 4. Anyone purporting to be an avenue of settlement and redress within
> Mensa has an obligation to fully investigate all sides of the dispute
> before making any findings.
>
> All I need is to find one or more people of authority within Mensa with
> a sense of ethics and justice equal to their IQs and who therefore
> support those four premises (and who don't just rubber-stamp the
> malfeasance of the ruling "in-crowd") and I will prevail.
>
> So there is no thin ice when one is in the right, and I'm pleased to
> have a dialogue with you on this.
>
>> They will be embedded
>> within your latest e-mail:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Al Heigl" <webmaster@minnesotamensa.org>
>> To: "EldonCR" <eldoncr@rrenviro.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: Could use some help with a by-law violation
>>
>> > Hello, Eldon --
>> >
>> > Thank you very much for your reply.
>> >
>> > EldonCR wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, Al; I'm running about 2 1/2 weeks behind on my e-mails.
>> >
>> > I can sympathize. I've got an inbox with over 900 e-mails in it; not
>> > that very many of them need replies, but I'm years behind just on my
>> > sorting and filing.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You've given me a tall order and it will take a bit to check on all
>> >> you've
>> >> asked of me.
>> >
>> > I'm frankly surprised at that assessment. I see just three simple
>> > facts
>> > to be evaluated and acted on.
>> >
>> >> However, a brief review indicates your interpretation of some
>> >> of the "facts" and issues are at odds with my understanding.
>> >
>> > I'm not seeing where these facts are subject to much interpretation at
>> > all.
>> >
>>
>> See below...
>>
>> >
>> >> More details as
>> >> I can, but for now, know I am considering your case.
>> >
>> > Please ensure that you are considering the right "case" -- there is
>> > currently an ongoing dispute between some members of Minnesota Mensa
>> > and
>> > me, regarding the Minnesota Mensa website and my position as Webmaster.
>> >
>> > That dispute is NOT what I am asking you to look into, nor, I infer,
>> > has
>> > anybody else, as you hadn't tried to get in touch with me about it
>> > before I contacted you back on Friday, 3/25/2005.
>> >
>> > The details of that local dispute, any facts, any interpretations, any
>> > possible resolutions -- none of all that has the slightest relevance to
>> > what I am asking you to intervene in.
>> >
>> > The only thing about the original dispute that's relevant is that it
>> > exists in the first place. And I assume you accept that as a fact.
>> >
>>
>> Bad assumption. I do not agree.
>
> You are saying that there is no local dispute within Minnesota Mensa
> over our website and my position as Webmaster? You're saying the
> original dispute doesn't exist? Yet you go on to comment on it.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Here, again, is a brief summary of why I've contacted you:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. There is currently an ongoing dispute between some members of
>> > Minnesota Mensa and me, regarding the Minnesota Mensa website and my
>> > position as Webmaster.
>> >
>
> Here, you go into references to the particulars of the original
> dispute. That was not the issue here.
>
> However, I'll put in some in-line comments, which will *not* comprise a
> full discussion.
>
>>
>> A. Local Webmasters serve at the will of the ExComm or the LocSec
>> (depending
>> on the ByLaws of the particular group).
>
> All volunteers do -- I don't dispute that sentence.
>
>
>> B. Webmasters serve until no longer wanted.
>
> Subject to any particular rules as well as local and national by-laws.
>
>
>> If you were dismissed, asked to
>> resign, replaced, fired, or whatever, that is the local group decision.
>> You
>> may argue how that decision may have been carried out according to your
>> particular bylaws, but ultimately, you, as a "servant" to the group,
>> serve
>> at their will (as expressed through the group leadership).
>
> When the local group is wrong, they are wrong. When their decision
> violates a Mensa by-law, it's invalid. When that particular aspect of
> it is remedied by the 1st ViceSec, with authorization, negotiating,
> drafting, and signing a written agreement on behalf of the local group
> that overrides that decision, then the decision is overridden.
>
>
>> C. Your volunteer work is a gift you give the local group. Thank you, by
>> the
>> way, for trying to serve well in spite of the problems you've apparently
>> had
>> with the leadership. Disputes of this nature are fairly common.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, once Minnesota Mensa and I signed the written
> agreement, the Webmaster position was no longer merely "volunteer work"
> but instead more subject to Minnesota and federal contract law.
>
> Thanks for your thanks. Once I sign something, I intend to honor my
> part of the bargain until what I signed is superseded by another signed
> written agreement (or I die).
>
>
> Sidebar: please make yourself aware of what the *real* underlying issue
> is --
>
> I wrote the following (slightly edited) to Eric Adams back on 3/16/05:
> ----------------------------------
>
> Let me show you a good current example of what this is *really* all
> about.
>
> As of this writing, you can still browse to
>
http://www.mnmensa.org/archives/puzzles/ -- please note the quality
> (meaning the lack thereof). It may "look" attractive, but it doesn't
> work.
>
> This is a page archiving puzzles that have appeared in Mensagenda and
> reprinted on the website.
>
> 1. Note that it is incomplete and out of date. Nothing before 2002 or
> since October 2004.
>
> 2. Note that some are listed as "unavailable".
>
> 3. Note especially the entries for May, June, July, August, and November
> 2003, where there links to the answers but NO LINKS TO THEIR PUZZLES!
>
> 4. Note that the links to those answers without puzzles are all bad.
> And, while the archive page shows "April Links" at the upper left, the
> custom File Not Found page says "September Links".
>
> (I strongly recommend that you do something to preserve this evidence,
> since the WWW is very transient, and it's likely that someone will may
> dispatched to fix this page or remove it. Use File | Save to save a
> copy, or print it out, or at least take a screen shot of it.)
>
> Or make notes that my comments about this page are all correct.
>
> This page was created by what I still consider an inept, incompetent,
> webmaster wannabe, Jason Schmitz, as part of his "redesign" of
> mnmensa.org after he utterly destroyed every single page in the original
> site. As far as I know, this page has been in this deplorable condition
> for over two years.
>
> (There's lots more where this came from. I have multiple copies over
> time of this website. Currently there are 41 broken internal links.
> That's not counting a lot of typos, misspellings, etc.)
>
> This page makes Minnesota Mensa look like a bunch of morons.
>
> Now, for contrast, let's look at the same thing at the real website,
> minnesotamensa.org. Here is the link:
>
http://www.minnesotamensa.org/puzzles.htm.
>
> Note here that all months in which the puzzle was put on the website are
> covered. Each answer page is linked to directly from its puzzle. All the
> links are good.
>
> Conclusion? I have to think that anybody who would look at both pages
> and then advocate that mnmensa.org should represent Minnesota Mensa is
> no friend of Mensa, and a person who doesn't care if Mensa's image and
> reputation suffer.
>
> I have tried my best to maintain a quality website for Minnesota Mensa
> even throughout all this dispute.
>
> ----------------------------------
> End of what I wrote Eric Adams on 3/16/05.
>
> Note that, so far at least, my concerns about that mnmensa.org page
> disappearing or getting fixed were not needed. I've sent this
> particular page-comparison information to several people; I consider it
> highly unlikely that word of this has not reached the current
> "leadership" of Minnesota Mensa. Yet that page at
>
http://www.mnmensa.org/archives/puzzles/ is still up there, unchanged,
> still making us look like fools.
>
> I also think it's worthwhile for you to note that the inept webmaster
> wannabe, Jason Schmitz, mercifully quit screwing up mnmensa.org around
> June of 2004. Beginning with the back cover of the July 2004
> Mensagenda, the position of Webmaster has been listed as "Open" despite
> the fact that the Editor, a member of the board and a party to the
> dispute, certainly is well aware of the signed written agreement naming
> me as Webmaster. I consider that harassment of a particularly
> pernicious nature, and conduct unbecoming a Mensan.
>
> In addition, and despite the above, although there have been calls for
> volunteers published in Mensagenda since July 2004, I have *never* seen
> one seeking volunteers for the Webmaster position. I consider that just
> plain bizarre.
>
> All of that has been leading me to the thought that there simply isn't
> anybody (except me) with the advanced skills needed to straighten out
> the mess at mnmensa.org, and the disputants on the Board are just too
> stubborn to comply with the signed written agreement. If you're looking
> for something to call "inimical to Mensa" I think you need go no further
> than that.
>
> Once I eventually prevail in this dispute, my number one priority will
> be to fix all the embarrassing mistakes on mnmensa.org, preferably by
> combining anything of value there with what's at minnesotamensa.org, and
> making one unified, redesigned site accessible through both domain
> names.
>
>
>> D. When one administration leaves, the volunteer positions they appointed
>> are, as a matter of course, vacated and the new leadership gets to fill
>> them
>> with anyone they desire, however qualified (or not).
>
> Granted, although the particulars of the original dispute occurred in
> the summer of 2002, and there was no administration transition
> involved. (And I note that your own position is exempt from this.)
>
> As for your last clause, if the leadership chooses to fill a volunteer
> position with someone unqualified, or refuses to put in position someone
> eminently qualified, then there is something wrong with the leadership.
>
> (Don't forget, there was a time that a guy named George was the
> legitimate king of the American colonies, and then he made some bad
> decisions like tea taxes, etc. And we both know how that turned out.)
>
> A change in administration, by the way, is on my list of projects.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > The Minnesota Mensa Ombudsman, Eric Adams, has been investigating that
>> > dispute for over a year; he has been in touch with me via both phone
>> > conversations and e-mail. He has not, however, reported back any
>> > results of his investigation, and thus has not yet made any efforts
>> > toward settlement and/or redress of that dispute.
>> >
>>
>> That last sentence is a rather harsh assessment, isn't it? How do you
>> know
>> he has not spent time and effort trying to settle the dispute? The fact
>> that
>> he has not been particularly candid with you about all he has done does
>> not
>> mean he has "not made any efforts tward settlement and/or redress".
>
> There was absolutely no intention of harshness on my part, and the
> degree of his candor never occurred to me until you mentioned it here.
>
> Eldon, please understand that I know next to nothing about "ombudsmanry"
> and how it functions. But I assume that, like most everything else,
> there needs to be input and there needs to be output. For the latter, I
> look in the LocalSecretaryHandbook.pdf and find reference to "The
> International Ombudsman's findings ..." so perhaps "findings" is an
> acceptable term to use for the output.
>
> Also from the same document, referring to your own position:
>
> "(h) The Ombudsman may express opinions, settle disputes, render
> substantial justice, and promote the general welfare of American Mensa.
> The Ombudsman may act as an arbitrator, or arrange for another person to
> act as an arbitrator either at the Ombudsman's own motion or at the
> request of one or more of the parties; if all parties have agreed upon
> arbitration, or accept the Ombudsman's offer to arbitrate, the arbitral
> decision shall be binding upon them."
>
> So I would consider those sorts of things mentioned as "outputs" as
> well.
>
> The simple point I was making is that, to the best of my knowledge, Eric
> Adams has not yet delivered any output as defined above. He has not
> communicated any findings to me, and I have not read in the Board
> minutes that he has communicated any findings to the Board.
>
> I think it's quite reasonable and logical to posit that once Eric does
> make "any efforts toward settlement and/or redress" that he will make
> both the Board and me aware of these. Besides, I would expect that,
> based on the facts, his findings would include that Judy Hogan's efforts
> to remove me were improper and in violation of a particular by-law, and
> that the Board's attempts to thwart compliance with a signed written
> agreement to which Minnesota Mensa is a party is indefensible and
> inexcusable.
>
>
>>
>> > Our Region 4 Vice-Chairman, Cyndi Kuyper, has *not* investigated that
>> > dispute, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement and/or
>> > redress
>> > of it.
>> >
>>
>> Again, rather harsh (and wrong). I've talked with Ms. Kuyper, and she
>> understands the situation quite well.
>
> Not wrong, and as far as I can tell, she doesn't understand Jack Squat
> about the situation because to date, she has not bothered to investigate
> it.
>
> Ms. Kuyper has not e-mailed me, phoned me, or written to me soliciting
> my views on that original dispute. She has not contacted me ever, in
> any way, about it.
>
> The only mention of her that I've seen in connection with this is buried
> in the minutes of a Board meeting on 8/30/2004 --
>
> "Old Business:
>
> "Al Heigl: Cyndi Kuyper discussed this matter with the board, outlining
> the options available. Discussion followed. No board action was
> taken."
>
> Now what the heck is that? Certainly not serving to make "any efforts
> toward settlement and/or redress" that one would expect from an RVC.
>
> I wonder what she outlined as the available options. If she had taken
> any time to investigate the situation, she would have advised the board
> that removing me as Webmaster was a by-law violation, and that their
> option was to immediately begin fully honoring the signed written
> agreement to which Minnesota Mensa is a party.
>
> Looks like she didn't do that.
>
> What it *does* look like is that she was handed a load of hooey by
> (presumably) LocSec DeDe Tredinnick, perhaps also by Judy Hogan and
> others in the ruling "in-crowd" and, since it's reasonable to assume
> that they are acquaintances if not friends, simply decided to
> rubber-stamp their "position" and actually outlined some options to
> harass me further.
>
> Until Cyndi Kuyper takes her RVC position seriously and discusses this
> situation with me, anything she says while purporting to "understand the
> situation quite well" is bogus.
>
>
>> Not everyone who tries to solve an
>> issue has to report directly to you.
>
> If the issue concerns me, yes they do. If they report directly to one
> (or more) sides in a dispute, they have to report directly to all sides.
>
> And trying "to solve an issue" does not mean listening only to the views
> of the entrenched in-crowd and advising them on how to continue dumping
> on a loyal member who is the injured party in the dispute.
>
>
>> You are, I believe, in the dark more
>> than you may know.
>
> People who deliberately keep me "in the dark" might find their actions
> and motives being investigated (and publicized) some day.
>
> Besides, that goes both ways. I have been compiling a list of over a
> dozen interesting things to do until I prevail on this matter, and I'm
> only starting in on #4.
>
>>
>> > The American Mensa Ombudsman (that's you) has not investigated that
>> > original dispute yet, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement
>> > and/or redress of it.
>> >
>>
>> I have now investigated more, even, than you asked me to.
>
> Well, as far as that goes, you *still* haven't solicited my version of
> the situation, so any investigation is still in the very, very early
> stage, isn't it?
>
>
>>
>> > Pam Donahoo, our Executive Director, has not investigated that dispute
>> > yet, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement and/or redress of
>> > it.
>> >
>>
>> Of all the accusations you've made, Al, this one strikes me as perhaps
>> the
>> most preposterous. How can you possibly say this?
>
> Because it's demonstrably true. Ms. Donahoo has not e-mailed me, phoned
> me, or written to me soliciting my views on that original dispute.
>
>
>> To investigate an issue,
>> talking to each party is not always necessary; sometimes it's even
>> unwise.
>
> That is a false assertion, Eldon, and hardly the sort of statement I
> would expect based on a re-reading of what you wrote in the June issues
> of the '03 and '04 Mensa Bulletins.
>
> Here's one partial quote: "If someone in the spotlight does something I
> think they should not, I have a responsibility to check all the facts
> ..."
>
> Why would you hold Cyndi Kuyper or Pam Donahoo to a lesser standard?
>
> Of course talking to each party is both always essential and wise --
> that is to say, a Mensa-level approach.
>
>
>> Pam is very well versed in all WIPO matters as well as many others.
>
> It's too bad that she wasn't that well versed in IIID. Taking the
> wrongdoers' side instead of trying to investigate and work toward a
> settlement among all parties is very troublesome. (Actually assisting
> them in their harassment of me is moreso.)
>
>
>>
>> > Neither has the AMC, nor Mensa International, I suppose, if it comes to
>> > that, but you get the picture.
>> >
>>
>> I'm afraid I do get the picture, and your part in that picture concerns
>> me.
>
> My "part in that picture" is that of a loyal Webmaster who was wrongly
> dumped on (in violation of a by-law) by someone with personal problems;
> my part is that of one who in good faith negotiated a signed written
> agreement with Minnesota Mensa which has yet to be fully honored. I
> should think *those* things would concern you.
>
>>
>> > In short, starting with our local Ombudsman, only *one* of the Mensa
>> > avenues of settlement and redress have yet to be availed of by the
>> > disputing parties, and that one hasn't been completed yet.
>> >
>>
>> I have talked to your Ombudsman, also. Your issue before him may be
>> concluded very soon.
>
> Well, that's at least advancing the situation somewhat, and what you
> tried to characterize above as my "rather harsh assessment" was merely
> stating that, in over 13 months of investigation, he had yet to conclude
> it.
>
> My expectation, of course, is that he supports the four points with
> which I started this e-mail. Should he opt instead to just go along
> with the entrenched in-crowd, I will take the case up the chain,
> presumably next to the RVC, who has yet to fully investigate the matter.
>
>
>>
>> > I really don't see where there can be any varying "interpretation" of
>> > these facts. There is a stepping-stone arrangement of avenues for
>> > settlement and redress of Mensa disputes, and not even the first step
>> > (local Ombudsman) has been done to completion.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2. If you will browse to
>> >
http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_prefix=D&case_year=2005&case_seq=0068
,
>> > you will see that a significant component of that original local
>> > dispute
>> > has been taken to the World Intellectual Property Organization
>> > Arbitration and Mediation Center.
>> >
>>
>> This IS a matter for an outside authority (WIPO). When you did not
>> willingly
>> consent to the will of the group (as expressed by the elected
>> leadership),
>> this type of matter AUTOMATICALLY goes to WIPO (outside the
>> organization).
>
> Yes, it WOULD BE a matter for an outside authority -- once the
> provisions of IIID permit it. Not before. Doing it before that --
> well, like it says, "... may be considered an act inimical to Mensa."
>
> When I did not "willingly consent to the will of the group" (who had
> violated a different by-law), the group sent me 1st ViceSec Paul Jensen,
> who was authorized to "conduct the affairs of Minnesota Mensa" and who
> drove down to Northfield and spent a significant amount of time
> negotiating with me a written agreement naming me as Webmaster for
> Minnesota Mensa.
>
> I signed this agreement, and the 1st ViceSec also signed it on behalf of
> Minnesota Mensa. Therefore, conning American Mensa to take the (settled
> by signed written agreement) matter to WIPO was merely harassment.
>
>>
>> > I don't see how it can be subject to "interpretation" that, with
>> > respect
>> > to Mensa, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is precisely,
>> > virtually by definition, an external authority.
>> >
>>
>> Are you saying that a criminal matter needs to be taken first to the
>> local
>> Ombudsman, the ExComm, the RVC and AMC and then me prior to going to the
>> police? Criminal matters are not Mensa matters,
>
> Exactly -- the way IIID is worded "... arising out of Mensa-related
> activities ..." makes that clear, so obviously I was NOT saying that.
>
> (As opposed to, say, the Mafia, in which criminal matters *are*
> group-related activities, and you can bet that those kind of disputes go
> through their internal chain of command and going to the police is
> likely not even an option.)
>
> However, the issue of Minnesota Mensa's website and Webmaster certainly
> is completely tied to Mensa-related activities, and therefore IIID fully
> applies -- no WIPO until "all avenues of settlement and redress" have
> been exhausted.
>
>> and WIPO matters (and some
>> others) cannot be solved unless the parties quickly and WILLINGLY settle.
>
> But Eldon, that's EXACTLY what happened. To reiterate, on August 10,
> 2002, 1st ViceSec Paul Jensen, who was authorized to "conduct the
> affairs of Minnesota Mensa" (and all members of the Board were notified
> of this in advance), drove down to Northfield and spent a significant
> amount of time negotiating with me a written agreement SETTLING THE
> DISPUTE. The agreement was a true compromise -- formal apologies were
> required from both sides, and, among other things, it let Jason Schmitz
> continue to embarrass us with his ag2003.com website (a massive
> compromise on my part), and it reinstated me as Webmaster for Minnesota
> Mensa (at mnmensa.org back then). I quickly and WILLINGLY signed this
> agreement, and the 1st ViceSec also signed it quickly and WILLINGLY on
> behalf of Minnesota Mensa.
>
>
>> You didn't settle, so WIPO IS APPROPRIATE in this instance.
>
> Incorrect -- see above -- and is it possible that nobody told you about
> this? I wanted to settle, and I DID SETTLE, in writing, yet.
>
> Some on the Board, although they complied with some of the requirements,
> apparently didn't care much for all of its provisions. Tough.
>
> Eldon, the problem here, and why I'm going to continue with this until I
> prevail, is that I DID SETTLE. In writing. Signed by both parties to
> the dispute. The real problem is with the entrenched in-crowd that has
> refused to honor the settlement.
>
> That is why WIPO is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE in this instance.
>
> I'm the wronged injured party in this -- we DID settle the dispute, in
> writing, but certain members of the entrenched in-crowd have reneged on
> the settlement and tried to con others into supporting that (probably by
> conveniently failing to mention it).
>
> That's what I'll be asking for as I move this up the chain -- I need
> somebody with authority to insist that our signed written settlement
> agreement be honored by ALL parties to it!
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 3. Finally, I quote again:
>> >
>> > ---------------------
>> >>From the Local Secretary Handbook, page 2-2 (page 15 in pdf file):
>> >
>> > THE CONSTITUTION OF MENSA
>> > [International Constitution of Mensa adopted April 1982.
>> > Includes Amendments adopted 1982, 1985. Reprinted October 1992.]
>> >
>> > III. MEMBERSHIP
>> >
>> > D. DISPUTES WITHIN MENSA
>> > Members having a dispute with Mensa, with any national Mensa or
>> > subdivision thereof, or with another member arising out of
>> > Mensa-related
>> > activities shall exhaust all avenues of settlement and redress within
>> > the Society before taking the dispute to external authorities. Failure
>> > to do so may be considered an act inimical to Mensa.
>> > ---------------------
>> >
>> > That's fairly concise and precise and not subject to a lot of
>> > "interpretation" in this case. The circumstances I've listed in points
>> > 1 and 2 above fit this By-Law exactly.
>> >
>>
>> In my opinion you are 100% wrong in that interpretation. In this
>> situation,
>> the issue is not "Mensa-related".
>
> Eldon, you'll have to help me out on this assertion.
>
> The issue, as presented to WIPO, has American Mensa claiming to be the
> Complainant (which it can't, because of IIID), one of the Co-respondents
> is Minnesota Mensa (because the Venable lawyer screwed up the
> paperwork), and the other Co-respondent is the Minnesota Mensa Webmaster
> (by signed written settlement), and what's being disputed to WIPO is the
> Minnesota Mensa website's domain name.
>
> What part of this issue are you saying is not "Mensa-related"?????
>
>>
>> >
>> > Conclusion:
>> >
>> > There does in fact exist an internal dispute of Minnesota Mensa members
>> > with another member, arising out of the Mensa-related activity of the
>> > Minnesota Mensa website and its Webmaster.
>> >
>> > All avenues of settlement and redress have *not* been exhausted; in
>> > fact, most of them have not even been initiated.
>> >
>> > WIPO is, by definition, an external authority.
>> >
>> > Therefore, WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 is a clear violation of Mensa
>> > By-Law
>> > IIID.
>> >
>> > The violation is aggravated by the waste of Mensa dues monies involved.
>> > Browse to
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/fees/index.html -- it looks
>> > to
>> > me like somebody's blown at least $1500 on WIPO fees. That doesn't
>> > count whatever is being paid to Jason Aquilino, the Venable lawyer
>> > who's
>> > been claiming to represent Mensa on this. (I hope it isn't much --
>> > he's
>> > young, new at this, and has made a number of glaring mistakes that I've
>> > been documenting.)
>> >
>>
>> I believe YOU have cost Mensa whatever the fees have been and will be
>> (the
>> fact that mistakes have been made, glaring or otherwise, is totally
>> irrelevant).
>
> This is Mensa -- mistakes are always relevant.
>
> Since the WIPO action is unnecessary (because Minnesota Mensa and I
> settled the original dispute with a signed written settlement) at this
> time, and violates IIID, I would think that whoever is found to have
> reneged on the settlement and/or violated IIID's provisions could face
> liability for improper expenditures.
>
> (Plus, I'm out $29.95 for a "Hosting Administrative Fee" connected with
> all this WIPO idiocy, and when the dust settles, somebody's going to be
> getting a bill for reimbursement.)
>
>>
>> > As far as I can tell, at least with respect to attorney's fees, the
>> > meter is still running on this.
>> >
>> > So the faster you can satisfy yourself as to the factual nature of
>> > points 1, 2, and 3 above and get somebody to pull the plug, the better
>> > for the Mensa budget.
>> >
>>
>> The sooner you comply with the wishes of the local group, the sooner this
>> will be over and the less damage you will have caused, IMHO.
>
> The sooner the local group fully complies with the signed written
> settlement agreement dated 8/10/02, the sooner this will be over and the
> less damage the entrenched in-crowd will have caused, actually.
>
>
>> I believe you
>> could already have committed an act (or acts) inimical to Mensa.
>
> Well, it wouldn't be the act of failing to comply with a signed written
> settlement, as I *have* complied with it and will continue to do so. I
> believe that those in-crowd cronies that have obstructed the local
> group's compliance with the signed written settlement to which it is a
> party may eventually be judged to have committed inimical acts.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Eldon, I hope this clarifies things further. If there is anything in
>> > points 1, 2, and/or 3 above that you would like to discuss or debate
>> > with me, please let me know ASAP.
>> >
>> > And I also hope you will remember that any of the details of the
>> > original dispute about our Minnesota Mensa website are NOT a necessary
>> > part of your investigation into the WIPO case situation that I am
>> > asking
>> > you to intervene in. You may well get to take a shot at sorting out
>> > that original dispute, but that is NOT what is at issue here and now,
>> > it's the violation of By-Law IIID.
>> >
>>
>> It's a good thing I'm not making a decision right now, because I'd
>> probably
>> make short work of it. I'd probably tell you to give it up and let the
>> group
>> do whatever they want (including "firing" you).
>
> I'd respectfully say it's a good thing, but only because it looks like
> you have not fully investigated the situation and certainly not examined
> my side of the story. I suspect that you have not examined any of the
> relevant e-mails or other documents; I know that I haven't sent you any
> of their URLs. Perhaps you've gotten them from others, although I would
> think that they would not want you to see the things that make them look
> very, very bad.
>
> On the other hand, since you've acknowledged in writing both that "Your
> issue before" (Eric Adams) "may be concluded very soon" and that you are
> "not making a decision right now," I have absolutely solid evidence
> (just considering the Ombudsman "avenues") that the disputants have yet
> to "exhaust all avenues of settlement and redress within the Society" so
> the WIPO action violated IIID in the first place and still does.
>
> Personally, I think the WIPO panel is going to be rather dismayed when I
> bring this to their attention.
>
>
>> I see no validity in your
>> argument to resist the will of the local group.
>
>
> Technically, "the will of the local group" as an entity is expressed in
> a signed written settlement document dated 8/10/02, and *I'm* not the
> one resisting it. What I will resist forever is the misguided,
> self-centered, duplicitous, hangup-driven personal wills of individual
> human beings who have royally screwed things up for the local group
> membership simply by virtue of their bringing their personal problems
> into their roles as board members of Minnesota Mensa, and failing to act
> for the good of the membership instead.
>
> Remember, they support what's at
>
http://www.mnmensa.org/archives/puzzles/ and would show that to the
> world for ongoing years rather than admit they goofed big time, honor
> the signed written settlement agreement, and let things finally get set
> right.
>
>
>>
>> > Thanks for your time and interest in this.
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> >
>> > Al Heigl
>> > Webmaster,
>> > Minnesota Mensa
>> > --
>> >
>> > Alan Heigl
>> > Mill City Records
>> > P.O. Box 177
>> > Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
>> > 507-663-6090
>> >
>>
>> I urge you to quickly allow the local group to proceed as they may wish
>> (and
>> to heal).
>
> I am ready at any time to quickly allow the local group to proceed as
> required by the signed written settlement agreement dated 8/10/02.
>
> Only then will there be any healing, and I have some elaborate and
> constructive ideas on that, too, should anybody care to ask.
>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Eldon C. Romney, Ombudsman
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Al Heigl
> Webmaster,
> Minnesota Mensa
> --
>
> Alan Heigl
> Mill City Records
> P.O. Box 177
> Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
> 507-663-6090